geronimo-dev mailing list archives

On Apr 6, 2010, at 7:54 AM, Rick McGuire wrote:
> On 4/6/2010 10:34 AM, Donald Woods wrote:
>> Should we do like the server releases?
>> The first new major release uses 2 digits and any follow-on maintenance
>> releases introduce the third digit, like -
>> 2.1, then 2.1.1, 2.1.2, 2.1.3, ....
>>
>
> That's certainly not what's been done. Going through the numbers, we have a mixture
of 1.0-SNAPSHOTS and 1.0.0-SNAPSHOTS for first releases, and also a mixture of maintenance
release numbers with both 2 and 3 digits. Your suggestion sounds fine to me, though the specs
really never use the middle digit...or even the first one, for that matter!.
>
>> Bigger question, is what does OSGi want? When we set version ranges
>> like [1.0,2.0) does having 1.0 vs. 1.0.1 artifacts matter?
>>
>
> The bundles don't export the version numbers of the spec implementation, but only the
version number of the interface they implement. Thus the 1.0.0 version of geronimo-el_2.2_spec
exports the 2.2 version of the el packages. The 1.0.0 version number does not show up there.
IIUC osgi expects to come up with some package versions for ee spec apis that has no relationship
to the ee spec version but does follow osgi version semantics. So, anything we publish now
will be at least 90% wrong and apt to produce problems if it's released into the wild for
everyone. The only case I'm aware of where there's been some conclusion is to version the
jpa 2 api at 1.1.
Maybe we should not version the packages in the jars until osgi firms up its idea of what
they should be????
thanks
david jencks
>
> Rick
>>
>> -Donald
>>
>>
>> On 4/6/10 10:05 AM, Rick McGuire wrote:
>>
>>> I've been going through and doing some release dry runs on the spec
>>> projects, and I've noticed that there is an inconsistency with the
>>> release numbering. Some of the projects use a two level release number
>>> (e.g., 1.0), while others use a three level numbering system (e.g.,
>>> 1.0.0). It would be nice to make these consistent, and since we're
>>> going to be releasing most of these shortly, now seems like a good time
>>> to do this.
>>>
>>> So, the question I have is which system should we use? Many projects
>>> use a 3-level system, but in the case of the specs, I don't believe we
>>> ever really use the middle digit when 3 levels are used. That generally
>>> would only occur when there are functional enhancements to the spec,
>>> which generally results in a new subproject getting created to reflect
>>> the spec number change.
>>>
>>> So, should we:
>>>
>>> [] Convert everything to two-digits
>>> [] Convert everything to three-digits
>>> [] Leave things the way they are
>>>
>>> If the consensus is we're fine the way we are, then the next question is
>>> whether we should be using two or three digits for newly created spec
>>> projects.
>>>
>>> Rick
>>>
>>>
>>
>